Yonhap, referring to a piece in Stars and Stripes, has cast doubt on USFK’s management of personnel suspected of criminal activity after a private convicted of a March 2005 robbery admitted to beating and robbing a taxi driver on Christmas night. From the Stars and Stripes piece:
An Army private already under base restriction after a March 2005 robbery is one of five soldiers who admitted to beating and robbing a taxi driver on Christmas night, South Korean prosecutors said this week.
Pvt. Kidrem Cortez Porter was restricted to base but not under confinement after being sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison for the March robbery.
On an initial appeal, his sentence was reduced to one year and six months in prison. The 18-month sentence is pending a hearing date on a final appeal to the Supreme Court of Korea, court officials said.
In the March incident, Porter removed a replica gun from the wall of an off-base club and hid it in the club bathroom, according to court records. Porter and another soldier then fought with South Korean nationals after being confronted, the records said.
The March incident was stupid enough, but nothing compared to the Christmas one:
On Friday, prosecutors interrogated the soldiers about the Christmas night robbery. Afterward, an official from the Uijeongbu prosecutor’s office said it appeared Porter and the other soldiers each had pre-assigned roles: A 21-year-old private choked the taxi driver in the back seat of the car while a 21-year-old corporal wearing leather gloves hit the driver over the head with a bottle. Another private then stole about $180 and the driver’s cell phone, according to prosecutors and the taxi driver’s statement.
The driver said the soldiers then threw him in the trunk before he escaped and ran to a police station.
Ridiculous.
12 Comments
Back in 1995 when I tried to join the army the recruiter denied me. Why? Cause I got arrested for smoking pot a few years prior when I was a minor… and this was in pot-friendly California. I’m sure these days with the Iraq/Afganishtan/(your country here)-inspired recruit decline, they’d be begging to take me in so that they wouldn’t have to accept more thugs.
Blah blah blah. There is no “recruit decline”, hophead. Fewer new enlistees may be showing up at the MEPS (and even this is open to dispute — Army recruiting is under 100% of quota largely because the end-strength was increased by 20,000 last year), but a large number of “Shanghaied” and supposedly disgruntled National Guardsmen and reservists are coming over to the active ranks. Also re-enlistment rates have never been higher. If it’s so bad, I wonder why those who know the service best are choosing to stick around and fight?
You look pretty fit in your “About Me” photo on your Blogger site, Max. And the first-enlistment age has been raised to 41. Why not check it out?
Am I reading this correctly?
The soldier was in trouble already before the Christmas robbery, because in March he was in a club and tried to hide a replica gun so he could take it later, and he got in a fight with Koreans who saw him doing it.
For the bar incident, he was on restriction, but he and others robbed and beat a taxi driver at Christmas, for which he is locked up pending being handed over to the Koreans for prison.
If the story were not written somewhat poorly, it would be easier to think about.
It is my understanding the Koreans can demand custody for cases like this, definately the taxi robbery, as soon as an indictment is handed down. It used to be years ago they had to wait until all appeals were exhausted, but that changed in the late 1990s. I have no idea why the guy is convicted but still in USFK custody.
If the Koreans wanted him, they should have been able to get him before now.
The main point of the story, and why it is written jumbled like this, is supposed to be that the guy walking around and being able to do the 2nd crime is somewhat of an outrage.
But, how abnormal is it?
Do they not have bail in Korea?
A Korean who tried to steal a replica gun (toy?) and got in a fight with someone would never be let go pending trial? I doubt it.
What would we normally expect in the US?
Unless the soldier did a lot of bodily damage to the others in the fight, he would have gotten a low bail.
It would not have been unusual for the police to show up, and judging by the story, have the bar owner want to wash his hands of the whole thing and not get involved further (like having to go to court later) by just telling the police he didn’t want the bastard in the place ever again, and if the other party involved in the fight didn’t want to get involved further in the future, the police would more than likely let the soldier go with a warning. This happens a good bit when the police come to the scene of a situation like this.
But, even if the the bar owner or other party in the altercation wanted to press charges, for the event as it is described in the bar, it would be considered abnormal to have the criminal locked up behind bars 24 hours a day until trial —- unless he could not afford bail, and based on the description of this first even, bail would not have been high.
So, what do we have at the end of the day?
The most curious thing for me in the story is why the Koreans did not put the soldier in jail for the taxi case before trial. I thought that had become routine since they gained the right in the previous SOFA revision. I don’t know if the taxi event was of the type that allows Korea to get the suspect after indictment or not, but I think it is.
Beyond that, it is a case of someone committing a crime and getting punished along the lines of what I would expect of a Korean criminal or someone here in the US, execpt I think the soldier would be able to get bail even in the 2nd incident if he could afford it in the US.
I don’t know if Korea has a bail system or not or some other system to release people pending trial? It would be suprising if they didn’t.
Brendon, do they?
Yes, it’s all Koreans’ fault because they didn’t have any balls.
cm, what the hell are you talking about? Nobody’s blaming the Koreans on this one. usinkorea is not blaming anyone, he is just stating what he thinks the legal situation would be like, if it were the states and wonders what’s going on here.
Of course this dickhead soldier deserves to spend more time in prison. Unfortunately, despite the many decent soldiers there’s bound to be a few losers like this guy. He should definitely be put away for awhile, but I think the same should go for anyone committing a violent crime, whether in Korea or the States. The laws back home (canada) are definitely too slack for violent crime.
Here is some second hand info I heard about the first incident at the club involving this soldier so take it for what it’s worth. After the club incident the soldier was picked up by the MP’s and given to his chain of command. This is not uncommon in the ville. Scuffles in the ville are pretty much always handed over to the MP’s to deal with by the business owners and the KNP’s there. The soldier was then given an Article 15 UCMJ punishment where part of his punishment was restriction to camp.
He broke the restriction and went and caused the second incident. Once again the police gave the soldier to the MP’s to secure which is not uncommon. He is now kept in pre-trial confinement at Camp Humphreys because he has shown due to breaking his prior restriction that he is a flight risk. He will eventually be handed over from Camp Humphreys to the ROK prison Choenan where he will rot for 18 months.
The Korean authorities could have held him for pretrial confinement if they wanted to but they chose not to.
The Korean authorities could have held him for pretrial confinement if they wanted to but they chose not to.
Is it possible that the Korean authorities chose not to hold him for pretrial confinement because they were under the impression his confinement to base would be enforced? (Asking, not saying.)
I’m curious: Is base confinement common, easy, taken seriously?
My guess from previous incidents, which GI Korea probably has much better knowledge about, is that it depends on the crime.
Serious offenders would be locked in a cell, I do believe. There was a case in the 1990s where a soldier held for murder escaped briefly, but I don’t think he broke out of his holding cell but another area.
Here, the way the story is written, it seems to me, invites confusion. For the first incident, I wouldn’t expect he would be locked in a cell on base, but would be fairly free to roam about.
In the 2nd case, I would expect him to be locked up securly, but again, even there, if this were in the US, it wouldn’t be a shocker if he posted bail and were thus pretty much free to roam about — with something like not being able to leave the city or the jurisdiction.
But, what GI Korea pointed out would also come into play. If this were a 2nd offense, and part of that 2nd one was breaking the terms of his limitation of movement, it might not be suprising if bail were denied or raised to the point he couldn’t post it or have some other tougher restriction put on like one of those electronic devices that lets the police know if the person has gone beyond the area they are limited to and helps track them down if they do.
It is extremely common in the military to restrict people to the post or the unit area. We don’t put GPS trackers on them though. If the person restricted is seen breaking the restriction he will receive more severe punishment. The first incident of theft is not a serious enough crime to put someone in pretrial confinement for. If the US Army put everyone in pretrial confinement for theft and other petty crimes there would be no room in the jails. Camp Humphreys has enough people in there as it is.
Now for serious crimes soldiers will be put in pretrial confinement. If the first incident never happened and just solely the second incident happened those soldiers would be put in pretrial due to the seriousness of the crime and the evidence involved much less the fact that he broke his prior restriction.
Kushibo it’s usually taken seriously. I don’t know the terms of the soldier’s restriction but I would GUESS that he was ordered to sign in at certain times at his unit and not allowed to get out of uniform except while sleeping. Typically he would sign out at the his unit at 2200, and then be restricted to his barracks until signing in again at 0600. Often the First Sergeant will leave orders for someone on duty to check on him a couple of times during the night to make sure he’s in his room.
If you all knew how the Army’s Trial Defense Service lawyers brag to each other about who can get their clients off scot-free or with a light sentence, you’d understand. Must be something about OER’s and aspirations of becoming a field grade officer.
These guys exploit every technicality and loophole in the UCMJ to its full extent.
If you put a guy on restriction but have people checking on him or watching him, the goddamn Army lawyers say it’s “conditions tantamount to confinement” and that time gets counted against his sentence.
JAG Corps…a satire upon Soldiership and Honor.
Mark
How bout them Steelers?!!!!!!